Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Amalek = (ML + Q

HALOT says definitively, as to the name (MLQ/“Amalek”:  “no linguistic
explanation possible”.  But surely we on the b-Hebrew list can do better than
that!

Let’s start by considering the well-known fact that an archaic ghayin is
represented by an ayin in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but by a G in the Greek
Septuagint.  (First letter in Gaza or Gomorrah.)  In Hebrew, an archaic
ghayin sounded a lot like a gimel/G, but definitely was not a true gimel/G.  
My
understanding is that Official Aramaic did not have a ghayin (although some
Aramaic texts reflect a dialectal ghayin).  But did ancient Aramaic have a
somewhat similar phenomenon, where the sound in question sounded like a Q,
though it was not a true qof/Q, but rather was an archaic form of an Aramaic
ayin?

‘[Aramaic had] a phoneme resembling q, which…shifted later to ayin..”

Quoted from a synopsis of _Ginsberg, H.L., “The Northwest Semitic Languages,
” pp. 102-124, 293 in “The World History of the Jewish People, Vol 2: The
Patriarchs”, edited by B. Mazar; Tel-Aviv, New Brunswick (1970_
(http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/ginsberg-hl-“the-northwest-semitic-languages”
-pages-102-124-293-in-the-world-history-of-the-jewish-people-vol-2-the-patri
archs-edited-by-b-mazar-tel-aviv-new-brunswick-197/) );  here:

_http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/ginsberg-hl-%E2%80%9Cthe-northwes
t-semitic-languages%E2%80%9D-pages-102-124-293-in-the-world-history-of-the-j
ewish-people-vol-2-the-patriarchs-edited-by-b-mazar-tel-aviv-new-brunswick-1
97/_ (http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/ginsberg-hl-“
the-northwest-semitic-languages”
-pages-102-124-293-in-the-world-history-of-the-jewish-people-vol-2-the-patriarchs-edited-by-b-mazar-tel-aviv-new-brunswick-197/)

Accordingly, it is possible that in an ancient proper name in the Hebrew
Bible, a final Q may on some occasions not be a true qof/Q, but under Aramaic
influence may rather be representing the sound of an archaic Aramaic ayin,
that had a sound similar to Q.

In this post, I will argue that the final Q in the name (MLQ/“Amalek” in
chapter 36 of Genesis, which applies to an ancient person in the Transjordan
(fairly near the Aramaic homeland northeast of Canaan) may be (i) an archaic
Aramaic ayin (rather than being a true qof/Q), which is (ii) a mere suffix,
not being part of the root of this proper name.  [The  n-a-m-e  (MLQ may
well be an authentic Bronze Age Aramaic-influenced name from the Transjordan,
regardless of when the Patriarchal narratives were composed.]  If so, then
the name “Amalek”/(MLQ in the Patriarchal narratives (an illegitimate
grandson of Esau) would make perfect sense.  (ML + Q suffix would mean a 
“vexatious
” person, where (ML means “vexation” or “something irksome” or “toil” or
“heavy, wearisome labor”, and the Q suffix merely makes this common word
into a proper name.  That’s a classic tri-consonantal root + suffix (instead
of a very rare 4-consonant root).  In later books of the Bible, the “
Amalekites”/(ML + Q + Y would then mean “vexatious people”.  On that basis it
would no longer be surprising that (i) Amalekites appear all over western Asia
in the Bible, as the ever-changing nemesis of the Hebrews, or that (ii)
secular history knows no ethnic group called the Amalekites.  Outside of 
Genesis,
Amalekites are consistently “vexatious people” to the Hebrews, while
showing few if any other traits consistently (especially regarding 
geographical
location or ethnicity).  The one and only constant, as succinctly stated by
Jewish Encyclopedia.com, is:  “The Amalekites themselves always appear as
hostile to Israel.”

Ayin and “Q” as Bronze Age Suffixes

As noted above, it is possible that the final Q in (MLQ, under Aramaic
influence, represents an archaic Aramaic ayin, rather than being a true qof/Q.
If that final Q is actually a type of ayin, then in a Bronze Age context,
that “Q”/ayin may be a mere suffix.

It is true that in fully-developed Biblical Hebrew in the Iron Age, an ayin
at the end of a common word is invariably considered part of a
tri-consonantal root, not a mere suffix.  But in the Bronze Age (before 
written Biblical
Hebrew is attested), a final ayin was sometimes a mere suffix.  To
illustrate this phenomenon, )RB( as a common word in Biblical Hebrew in the 
Iron Age
always means “four”, and never means “big”.  The key is the final ayin/(,
which is an integral part of the tri-consonantal Iron Age root:  RB(.  But
the Anakim giant named )RB( [“Arbe”] probably has an authentic Bronze Age
name [regardless of how late the parts of the Bible were composed that
reference the ancient giant “Arbe”, and regardless of whether that ancient 
giant
is historical or fictional, just as with (MLQ].  As an authentic Bronze Age
name, )RB( has an archaic two-letter root, RB, meaning “big” in all Semitic
languages.  The final ayin is a mere suffix in the Bronze Age, simply
making RB into a person’s name.  (The initial aleph is prosthetic.)  So this
ancient giant’s Bronze Age name fittingly is “Big”, not “Four”.  [The name “
Anakim” itself comes from the name (NQ, which may, like (MLQ, reflect a “Q”
/archaic Aramaic ayin suffix, especially since the three tribes of the
ancient Anakim have Aramaic names.]

Continuing with this analysis of a final Q being an Aramaic suffix (not an
integral part of a word’s root), the Aramaic verb MXQ and the Hebrew verb
MXQ have a similar meaning, with the former meaning “to wipe out”, and the
latter meaning “to smite, destroy”.  Kindred Hebrew verbs are MX) and MXH,
which have about the same meaning, as does the Aramaic verb MXY.  For all five
verbs (two Aramaic and three Hebrew) it seems clear that the root consists
of the two consonants MX, and the final letter in all cases is a mere
suffix, with the suffix having relatively little effect on the meaning.  
Indeed,
we might have expected MX( [with a final ayin] in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, but
instead we get a Q ending in both Hebrew and Aramaic, being a “Q”/archaic
Aramaic ayin:  MXQ.  The point is that if there is an Aramaic connection, a
Hebrew word or name ending in Q may be a “Q”/archaic Aramaic ayin, which is
a mere suffix, and is not part of the root.  Likewise, if we compare Aramaic
YRQ with the three Hebrew words YRQ and YR( and YR), we see that all these
words mean either “green” (for plants), or “greenish with fear” (for a
person).  Given the Aramaic connection, we are no longer surprised that the
final Q is a mere suffix [being an archaic Aramaic ayin], rather than being a
qof/Q that is an integral part of the root.  The two-letter Bronze Age root
is YR, meaning “green”, and the suffixes merely indicate whether this is a
good “green”, as with vegetables or grass, or this is a bad “green”, as
with a person being “greenish” with fear, or “trembling (as if ‘greenish’
with fear)”.  [As opposed to the traditional etymology of “Aijalon” repeated
by Yitzhak Sapir, from item #100 on the Thutmosis III list -- YR + T -- it
can be determined that the actual Bronze Age root of “Aijalon” is YR (which
was later pronounced YL), so that “Aijalon” means “the green grass place”:
) + Y-R/L + WN.  (The initial aleph/) in “Aijalon” is prosthetic, not part
of the root;  the original –T suffix later became a –WN suffix, with those
being the two most common suffixes on the T III list.  From its location on
the T III list, YR + T is almost certainly a mid-15th century BCE rendering
of the city name that later became “Aijalon “/)YLWN.)]  As another
example, each of Aramaic and Hebrew has CDQ, meaning, respectively, “to 
justify”
or “to be just”, and each of Aramaic and Hebrew has CD), having the related
meanings, respectively, of “in truth” or “true”.  Neither language has the
more expected form CD( [with a regular final ayin], probably because CDQ is
the functional equivalent of CD(, with the final “Q” in CDQ being an
archaic Aramaic ayin, which is functioning as a mere suffix.  Yet another 
example
is that each of Aramaic and Hebrew has the following two words, with the
same meanings, and with the meanings possibly being related.  A “street”/$WQ
is something that has been made “level”/$WH (which became $WY in later
Aramaic).  As always, we see the Aramaic connection, and the final Q in $WQ
appears to be a mere suffix (an archaic Aramaic ayin), not a true qof/Q that 
is
an integral part of the root.  Most Biblical Hebrew words that end with Q
seem to have an exact Aramaic equivalent, such as Z(Q, which means “to cry 
out”
 in both languages.  DQQ is the same in Aramaic and Hebrew, meaning “to
break into pieces” or “crush”.  Moreover, the final Q seems to be a mere
suffix, as the root is DQ, meaning “crushed” in Hebrew, which comes out as DWQ
in Aramaic, with the same meaning.  DLQ, meaning “to burn”, is the same in
Aramaic and Hebrew.  DBQ is the same in Aramaic and Hebrew, meaning “to cleave
”.

Based on the foregoing, a final Q seems to be an Aramaic-style ending.
Moreover, in many cases that final Q appears to be a mere suffix (even though 
a
Q in first or second position in a west Semitic word would always be an
integral part of the root).

(MLQ/“Amalek” as (ML + Q

It seems clear from the many preceding examples that a final Q can be a
mere suffix, Aramaic style.  If the final Q in (MLQ is an archaic suffix (not
being a true qof, but rather being an archaic Bronze Age predecessor of
Aramaic ayin), then the name (MLQ in the Patriarchal narratives makes complete
sense.

(ML can mean “vexation”.  (ML + Q suffix [with the “Q” suffix simply
making (ML/“vexation” into a person’s name] is a fitting name for a person who
is “vexatious” [a suitably negative name for disfavored Esau’s illegitimate
grandson].

(ML + Q + Y is probably an Iron Age formulation, but it is based on the
authentic Bronze Age proper name (ML + Q.  Though in the Bronze Age the Q
suffix might have dropped out [producing (ML + Y] when the new suffix yod/Y 
was
added, the Iron Age authors of the rest of the Bible wanted to highlight the
figurative relationship here to disfavored Esau’s illegitimate grandson
(MLQ.  (ML + Q + Y means “vexatious people” [where the root remains (ML].  
Such
vexatious people, the Amalekites, are (except at Genesis 14: 7) figurative
descendants of disfavored Esau’s illegitimate grandson, and (except at
Genesis 14: 7) they are always “vexatious”/(ML, being the nemesis of the
Hebrews, wherever they may be found.

(ML + Q + Y/“Amalekites” are not an ethnic group.  Rather, like the
pejorative use of the word “habiru” in the Amarna Letters, (ML + Q + Y is a
generic word for a certain type of people, here being “vexatious people”.
Outside of Genesis [with the Amalekites at Genesis 14: 7 (who are definitely 
not
descendants of Esau’s grandson, and who in fact are non-vexatious “good guys
”) needing a separate explanation, likely originally having been (MQ + Y/“
valley people”], all (ML + Q + Y/Amalekites in the rest of the Bible are “
vexatious people”, though they have no consistent geographical identification
and are not any particular ethnic group.

Scholars have been baffled by the names (MLQ and (MLQY.  The majority view
(reflected for example in HALOT) is that these names make no sense and/or
are of unknown foreign origin.  A small minority view holds (as noted by BDB)
that a few of the uses of (MLQY in the Bible may have originally been (MQY:
“valley people”.  Even that minority view does not explain most of the
uses of (MLQY, nor does it explain the personal name (MLQ at all.

But if we realize that on some occasions, a final Q in a Bronze Age proper
name may be a suffix (representing an archaic Aramaic ayin, not a true qof),
then the names (ML + Q and (ML + Q + Y make complete sense.  The root is
(ML, meaning “vexation”.  The final Q is, in this case, a mere (archaic)
suffix.  (ML + Q/“Amalek” is a “vexatious”/(ML person.  (ML + Q + 
Y/“Amalekites
” are any “vexatious”/(ML people (from the point of view of the Hebrews),
not an ethnic group (such as the Amorites, Hurrians, Hittites, etc.)
documented in secular history.  A loose, crude translation of (ML + Q + Y/“
Amalekites” might be “foreign devils”, being a generic, pejorative term for
enemies, not the name of any particular ethnic group.

The Bible is not insisting that the dastardly Amalekites are literally
blood descendants of Abraham.  No way.  The Hebrews’ ever-changing enemies 
from
time to time are the “foreign devils”/Amalekites/“vexatious people”,
having no particular ethnic identity or bloodlines.  The Amalekites/(ML + Q + 
Y
are only figuratively descendants of Esau’s illegitimate grandson:  (ML+ Q/“
Amalek”/“vexatious [(ML] person” -- (MLQ.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All
3 Bureaus FREE!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221797372x1201397989/aol?redir=https:%2F%2Fwww.freescore.com%2FOffers%2FStart%2FFreeCreditRepor
tAndScore.aspx%3FID%3D91831F371F138345B53A153F49D4D872%26siteid%3De927580bf7
)